Monday, March 22, 2010

Kucinich Vs. Nader On Healthcare

I was surprised to see Dennis Kucinich vote for the healthcare bill. Here's his rationale:

And from Democracy Now:Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader: A Discussion on Healthcare, Politics and Reform

Kucinich:

"I want to see this as a step. It’s not the step that I wanted to take, but a step so that after it passes, we can continue the discussion about comprehensive healthcare reform."

"But this [bill] is about a for-profit system, something I don’t endorse."

Nader:

"What we’re seeing here is a legislation that doesn’t even kick in until 2014. ... That means that there will be 180,000 Americans who will die between now and 2014 before any coverage expands, and hundreds of thousands of injuries and illnesses untreated."

"This bill does not provide universal, comprehensive or affordable care to the American people. It shovels hundreds and billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the worst corporations who’ve created this problem: the Aetnas, the CIGNAs, the health insurance companies. And it doesn’t require many contractual accountabilities for people who are denied healthcare in this continuing pay-or-die system that is the disgrace of the Western world."

"For the drug companies, it’s a bonanza."

Kucinich:

"Now, Ralph Nader, who is someone who I respect greatly, is right when he says that we need to continue to move forward with a single-payer movement. That’s what I want. That’s been what I’ve worked my politic—almost my entire political life towards."

lol @ Steve. Leave our MP alone :P (Okay really, I don't have an opinion on the matter. He's got money, he can do what he wants).

Re: what Kucinich said from the first quote you wrote, "...is about a for-profit system, something I don't endorse". Aren't the insurance companies making money now (that he would already be paying into)? They make money by not paying out the benefits! I'm quite sure they're doing well. This will hurt them. No? (I'm trying to understand your healthcare as it is and it's quite difficult.)

We'll have to admit the U.S will *never* reach a level of universal care Canada has. It's not a good/bad thing; we've just had ours in practice for hundreds of years. It will still take the States years to "perfect" the 'system', fill gaps, kinks, problems et al. to balance everything out. You know what? Ours isn't a perfect system either, I'll be the first to admit it, but at least everyone has access.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say if I were a single mother who can barely afford groceries or rent, would be appreciative that my child could receive care so s/he could grow into a healthy person and grow into, work and contribute to society instead of relying on the system in other ways.

I have a friend who went to Thailand to get bypass surgery. It was cheaper to fly there and pay for food and hotels and hospital, and then go back 6 months later for a checkup than to have it done in the U.S. The entire medical industry here - doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, health insurance -- all of them are ripoffs. There is no "free market" in the medical industry, you all overcharge and the most important thing to you is your paycheck. When the free market can't provide for something people need without them having to sell the farm, then a public option or single payer is the way to go.

I don't see why everyone who pays taxes can't receive back a basic level of healthcare for their input. To me, it's that basic level of care that needs to be determined, not whether it exists. If you want more care, you can pay for it.

Oh, and I forgot this until randomly last night (when I was too tired to post it)... did you hear Kucinich say he had Crohn's and he helped solve it by natural methods - a plant-based diet? Random, but I thought I'd point that out.